Reviewing the status of corporate social responsibility (CSR) legal framework

Abstract

Purpose

This paper reviews and analyzes the corporate social responsibility (CSR) legal framework worldwide, discussing the new CSR definition which comprises legal features and debates for and against CSR validation. The work contributes in linking CSR and corporate laws by considering the legislative approaches worldwide.

Design/methodology/approach

CSR has mostly a voluntary character whilst it entails a normative condition attributable to social and market demands. A detailed examination of CSR worldwide is presented paying attention to international CSR legal framework in Europe, USA, Asia, Africa and Australia. Arguments for and against CSR legalization are studied.

Findings

The authors show that more regulations have to be launched mainly concerning the consequences of corporations' activities impacting the environment. Governments should promote CSR and relative encouragements focusing on a win-win state of affairs for companies.

Research limitations/implications

It seems that in the future, more regulations will be established particularly concerning the effect of companies' activities toward the environment. Little research has been conducted on the legal aspect of CSR; therefore, future research should focus on this, providing new insights. Analysis in sector level will be helpful and instructive.

Practical implications

Many further disputes have to be worked out to set up and support arrangements which will direct and observe conversions into sustainable, habitable and low pollution.

Originality/value

The authors examine and discuss in details CSR schemes around the world concentrating to the international CSR legal framework in Europe, the USA, Asia, Africa and Australia. At the same time, the authors study the arguments for and against CSR legalization.

Citation

Halkos, G.E. and Nomikos, S.N. (2021), "Reviewing the status of corporate social responsibility (CSR) legal framework", Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 700-716. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-04-2021-0073